The model is current.
Everyone is
still waiting.
A practice already owns the most valuable asset on the project — a coordinated model. Then a client asks what the kitchen will feel like, a contractor asks what changed since Tuesday, and a consenting officer asks for a schedule. Each answer means someone opening authoring software and rebuilding an explanation by hand. This is a concept for the waits around the model, not a replacement for the model.
“The model already knows. The people waiting cannot see it.”
The gap this concept addressesThe wait between asking and seeing
A client emails: “can we see the living space with the bifolds open?” The answer exists in the model. Getting it to them means someone with a licence, an hour, a render, and a resend — tomorrow, if the day allows. Meanwhile the contractor is waiting on a variation, and the QS is waiting on quantities that the same model could give.
Every practice exports IFC — it is the open format that Revit, ArchiCAD and Vectorworks all write. That file already contains the walls, levels, doors, windows and slabs. Turning it into something a client can walk, or an agent can answer questions from, does not need another licence: assembl converts a real IFC to a walkable web scene in well under a second, headlessly, and has done so on real files.
What happens now
Every question about the model becomes a manual task for the one person who can open it, and the answer arrives long after the question mattered.
What it costs
BIM and 4D work is priced as skilled hours. Most of those hours are spent re-explaining a model that is already correct.
What the concept does
Converts your IFC to something people can walk in a browser, answers questions from the model itself, and drafts the sequence — all held for the practice to approve.
Every project moment, one pattern.
Each of these is a moment your customer already spends with you. Each can carry what the phone above shows: watch the work, earn the wait, answer one thing.
Be relevant — right thing, right moment · Be respectful — short, skippable, quiet by design · Be measurable — real impact, on the record · Be Aotearoa — built here, for how Kiwis actually wait
One model. Four people waiting on it.
The same coordinated model, answering four different questions. Nothing here issues a drawing, certifies a design, or replaces a producer statement — every output stops at the practice.
A template sends the same thing to everyone and changes the name. What matters here is the case that should get something different — or nothing at all.
The rules beside each draft are placeholders. A pilot replaces them with your actual policies. We have not seen those, and this concept does not guess at them.
The check that runs before anything reaches a client or a site
A model conversion is confident by nature — it will happily produce a number for something nobody modelled. These are the checks that catch that.
Drafts are held against the Building Act 2004 and its producer-statement regime, the Fair Trading Act 1986, and the precedence of the issued contract documentation.
Press run to see what it catches — and what it refuses to produce at all.
One room. Your people, your agents, every action on the record.
Every concept on this page would run inside a private room like this: your team and the agents in the same space, drafts appearing with receipts, a named person saying yes. It runs on infrastructure you approve — and what is said in the room stays in it.
receipt sources: your rate card · rules: yours · held for approval
Client information stays in your room. Six months later, “where did this come from?” is one line, not a search.
Yours
Runs where you approve — your own room, your own record. Nothing in it leaves it.
On the record
Every agent action lands as a line a person can read — not a log only a vendor can open.
People decide
Drafts wait for a named person. The room shows who said yes, and when.
This panel is a concept picture, not a live room — a pilot stands up the real one, on infrastructure you approve.
The project board, before anything issues
Illustrative and fictional. No production access is requested by this concept.
| Request | From | Prepared | Waiting on | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Walk the living space | Client | Browser walkthrough · indicative finishes | Practice check | Awaiting approval |
| What changed since Tuesday | Site | Delta view · three elements | Project lead | Awaiting approval |
| Wall and slab quantities | QS | Counts with element traces | QS to measure | Prepared |
| Consent schedule | Consultant | Nothing drafted | A named person | Held — judgement required |
| 4D sequence from the programme | Contractor | Draft sequence · model + dates | Project lead | Awaiting approval |
Volumes are deliberately blank. This demonstrator has no practice data and does not estimate anyone’s workload.
Every draft carries its own working.
Not a log somebody has to go and find. The provenance travels with the work — what it read, which rules it held, who must approve it, and what it refused to do.
This matters most on the day someone asks why it said what it said.
- Artefact
- Client walkthrough — living space
- Read
- An IFC export (levels, walls, openings, slabs) · the practice’s own naming · nothing from a client system
- Rules held
- Building Act 2004 · Fair Trading Act 1986 · practice quality assurance · contract documentation precedence
- Refused
- No consent schedule was drafted. No total was produced for an incomplete set. Nothing was issued, certified or superseded.
- Approver
- A named person. Unsent until then.
- Prepared
- —
- Reference
- —
What this will never do
It does not send. It prepares, and a named person sends. It does not publish to any channel, commit spend, move money, or make a decision that belongs to a person. It does not pretend to be a person — every draft says it was prepared by a machine and approved by a human.
No production access is requested by this concept.
Scope
One live project, from IFC export to client walkthrough and a drafted 4D sequence. Six weeks. Not the authoring, not the consent, not the documentation.
Access
An IFC export and your programme dates. No client records, no contract documents, no consent files.
Scorecard
Hours not spent re-explaining the model. Client questions answered the same day. Coordination views a project lead agreed were correct. One principal’s honest answer to “would you send this?”
Fail any line of the scorecard and we change the design or stop.
Pick a verb.
Not “book a demo”. Any of these is a real next step, and the third is a perfectly good answer.
What is the one constraint we have got wrong?
Every concept is built from the outside. There is always something about how Architecture & construction actually runs that we could not see. One line is enough.
Opens your mail app to assembl@assembl.co.nz. Nothing is collected by this page.